Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39747
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K SINGH, RAJESH RAI K, JJ
SRI PUTHIGE MUTT – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 21283 OF 2022 (GM-KLA)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MANMOHAN P.N
For the Respondents: SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1, R3, R5 & R7, SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI
The Lokayukta exceeded its jurisdiction by investigating claims beyond five years and failing to uphold natural justice, rendering its report and subsequent orders void.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 - Section 8(2)(d) - Petitioner sought to quash Lokayukta's report after an investigation into land disputes involving revenue entries - Court found Lokayukta's report and subsequent orders illegal for being beyond its power and violating natural justice principles. (Paras 10, 12, 20)
(B) Natural Justice - The Lokayukta failed to issue notice to the petitioner before determining right, title, and interest affecting the latter's property. (Paras 11, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of land granted in 1956, later disputed following a complaint about misconduct in revenue entries, leading to Lokayukta's report recommending cancellation of the petitioner's rights.
Findings of Court:
The Lokayukta exceeded its authority, and orders based on its report were quashed for not affording due process to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the Lokayukta acted beyond its powers and violated the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The Lokayukta is barred from investigating matters beyond five years under Section 8(2)(d); its unilateral conclusions without notice to the petitioner were untenable.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land acquisition and its implications for ownership. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. challenging orders related to land entries. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments on the investigative limits of the lokayukta. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. counterarguments supporting lokayukta's report validity. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. analysis of land grant documents and rights. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. statutory limitations for lokayukta's investigations. (Para 20) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
The petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought the following relief:
"i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the report dated 31.05.2017 passed by respondent No.2 in case bearing No. Compt/Uplok/BD-415/2008/ARE-6 (produced as 'Annexure-E');
ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the 4th defendant in Case number L.N.D. No.94/17-18 (produced as 'Annexure- F'); and
iii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent in case number R.A. No.11/2020 (produced as 'Annexure-G'); and
iv) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the notice bearing No.L.N.D.C.R:44/03-04 dated 02.09.2022 issued by the 5th respondent (produced as 'Annexure-M'); and
v) Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the erstwhile Government of Mysore granted land bearing Sy.No.79, Melinakuruvalli Village in favour of petitioner - Mutt i.e. Sri Puttige Mutt, Thirthahalli vide order dated 16.02.1956 bearing No. R7-18265-68-MUZ.238-54-8. The same was published in the gazette of the Government of Mysore in February, 1956. Thereafter, in the year 1979, the Government of Karnataka through the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga and the Land Acquisition Officer, Shivamogga acquired 28.6 acres of land in Sy.No.79 of Melinakuruvalli Village belonging to the petitioner - Mutt for expansion of Areca Research Station by Horticuture Department. In respect of said acquisition, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga passed a draft award for Rs.78,477/- in favour of petitioner - Mutt vide reference No.6/81/81-82 dated 08.05.1981. Additionally, the petitioner - Mutt had gifted 35 guntas of land in favour of Melinakuruvalli Gram Panchayat for establishment of Village Panchayat Office. So also, based on the request of Tahsildar, Thirthahalli Taluk, the petitioner - Mutt had sold 7.23 acres of land for the purpose of formation of layout and grant sites for site less persons in Thirthahalli under Ashraya Scheme. The petitioner - Mutt had also sold some portion of the land for Community Hall and for formation of house sites etc.
3. In the meantime, one D.V.Manjappa of the said village raised objection before the Tahsildar, Thirthahalli, in respect of change of katha in Sy.No.79 measuring 15.4 acres in the name of petitioner - Mutt after akarband durasti. The said dispute was decided by the Tahsildar in Case No.45/2002-03 on 02.07.2003 by passing an order to enter the name of the petitioner - Mutt in the RTC with respect to the aforesaid land.
4. Things stood thus, one Mr. Leo Aroja s/o John lodged a complaint in the year 2008 against the Tahsildar of Thirthahalli alleging that the Tahsildar had committed misconduct by illegally entering the revenue entries pertaining to the forest land bearing Sy.No.79 measuring 15.4 acres of Melinakuruvalli village in the name of petitioner - Mutt and also alleging that the petitioner - Mutt had sold 7.23 acres of land to Taluk Panchayath/Government for formation of a layout under Ashraya Scheme and received sale consideration.
5. Based on the said complaint, an investigation was taken up by the Lokayukta and filed a report on 31.05.2017 under Section 12 (1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for brevity “the Act”) by recommending the Competent Authority to cancel the revenue entries and collect the sale consideration paid to the petitioner - Mutt a
